JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant civil revision petition, stands, directed against the order rendered by the learned Rent Controller, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., on 14.05.2019, where through, he after dismissing the objections reared by the JD/petitioner herein, hence proceeded to determine, in a sum of Rs.10,000/- per mensem, the, quantum of use, and, occupation, charges, vis-a-vis, the demised premises. 2. A perusal of the impugned order, (a) makes a palpable disclosure, vis-a-vis, reliance becoming placed, by, the learned Rent Controller, upon, a, binding, and, conclusive decision rendered by this Court, upon, Civil Revision No. 66 of 2015, (b) wherein, vis-a-vis, demised premises occurring in the apposite building, wherein also exist, the, hereat demised premises, this Court quantified, the, use, and, occupation, charges, in, a sum of Rs.10,000/- per mensem. The decision recorded, by, this Court, upon, the afore Civil Revision No. 66 of 2015, on 30.03.2016, has attained finality, and, consequential therewith conclusive, and, binding effect, (c) inasmuch, as, the afore determined sum of use, and, occupation charges, vis-a-vis, the demised premises therein, and, occurring in the building rather wherein also, the, extant demised premises, are, hence located/occur, obviously, does, render, it, amenable for deference being meted thereto, (d) unless, evidence stood adduced by the JD, vis-a-vis, the area, of, the demised premises qua wherewith, the afore quantification, was, made by this Court while making, a, pronouncement, upon, Civil Revision No. 66, of, 2015 being larger in size, vis-a-vis, the hereat demised premises, (e) and, also its location occurring in a portion of the building, hence, holding, a, higher commercial potential, vis-a-vis, the demised premises hereat. However, the afore evidence is amiss. Consequently, the JD is estopped to contend that the reliance as placed, upon, the afore verdict by the learned executing court, rather suffering from any fallacy. Consequently, also the dismissal, under the impugned verdict, vis-a-vis, the JD's objections, and, also quantification of use, and, occupation charges, vis-a-vis, the hereat demised premises, given their occurrence, within, the apposite building,, qua wherewith, rather, a, binding, and, conclusive verdict, stood, recorded by this Court, in, Civil Revision No. 66 of 2015, does obviously merit affirmation. 3. In net shell, therein is no merit in the instant petition, and, it is dismissed accordingly. Consequently, the order impugned before this Court is maintained, and, affirmed. The parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court, on, 7th November, 2019. 3. In net shell, therein is no merit in the instant petition, and, it is dismissed accordingly. Consequently, the order impugned before this Court is maintained, and, affirmed. The parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court, on, 7th November, 2019. Records, if any, received, be, sent back to the quarters concerned. All pending applications also stand disposed of.